User talk:Boghog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:BogBot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Variability in PSA Measurement[edit]

I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals.

Citation style[edit]

Hello, I wonder why you are replacing standard citation style (last= | first= | last2= | first2=, etc.) with Vancouver style (vauthors=). Has there been any consensus on mass replace? Thanks, — kashmiri TALK 07:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi @Kashmiri: I was just following WP:CITEVAR. The first citation that was added to Survival of motor neuron used the Vancouver style author format. Since then, the use of a single |author= parameter to store more than one author has been deprecated and a new parameter |vauthors= has been introduced. Hence I updated the parameters in this edit. A consistent citation style had been established before your first edit to this article and your subsequent edits have introduced an inconsistent citation style.
  • A rationale for the use of the vauthors parameter may be found here and here. In short, |vauthors= does everything that |first1=, |last1= does including producing clean metadata and providing full compatibility with |display-authors= and |author-link=. In addition, vauthors does one thing that |first1=, |last1= does not, and that is to provide error checking to ensure that the author names are consistently formatted. Vauthors does all of this without the unnecessary parameter overhead that |first1=, |last1= introduces. Boghog (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One last point. |vauthors= may be used in any WP:CS1 style template (cite journal, cite book, etc.) and currently is in use in over 39,000 articles. Hence the use of vauthors has effectively become a standard along side first1, last1 (for comparison, last1 is used in 326,000 articles). Boghog (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Flag of Wisconsin.svg
Cheesehead to the Core
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning July 2, 2016
Excellent work on science related articles and willing to help out in topics such as medicine and science. Added bonus of having a knowledge level that produces quality articles. A no-nonsense kind of editor.
Recognized for
Work at WikiProject Medicine
Nomination page
Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for work on science related articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Boghog to be Editor of the Week for his excellent work on science related articles. We need more people who are willing to help out in topics such as medicine and science, with the knowledge levels that will allow decent quality articles. It's something I know I can't do, so to see someone so prolific doing such good work is fantastic. This editor is a no-nonsense kind and knows/helps wikiproject Medicine so much.' He justly deserves this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Worm That Turned: Not sure what exactly I did to deserve this award, but thanks your nominating me! Appreciate it. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Congrats! Thanks for your time and effort. Buster Seven Talk 10:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Worries of nonconsensus template hacks[edit]

Hi, User:Wikid77 here. Per your concerns of nonconsensus template changes (dif815), I have noted similar problems with re-reverts in 6-year template {{cvt}} (hist) and blanking of the related doc-page sections, plus adding incorrect parameter descriptions in other doc-pages, then posting unusual tangent messages after an issue has been clearly explained, plus asking other editors (via template-talkpage) to revert edits, as a wp:meat puppet request to further push incorrect changes to templates or doc-pages. Such problems raise the long-term question of "wp:competence is required" beyond wannabe wp:TAGTEAM. I don't have time, now, to document all the edits, but this is just a notice of related concerns which I have had. Thank you (and others) for trying to stop similar edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)